1/3rd? More like 1/2. I had a family member consider a lawsuit against a previous employer (chemical asthma, no warning and no protection provided against the chemicals in question) and the attorney's take would have ended up all said and done ~48%

Well, it's either that or pay them $5000 up front and then $300/hour after that.

Someone has to pick up the tab for the lawyers time, the overhead of getting that law degree, their WestLaw subscription, the rent and power bill for their office, the salary of the receptionist, the salary of the secretary and the salary of the paralegal.

You pay them a 30% cut for a normal case and 50% for one that goes to appeals because a lot of them don't generate any money at all. All of you "non paying people" are subsidizing each other.

You can always pay them by the hour (like any other professional) if you don't like the contingency arrangement.

Yes the RIAA protection racket is more like the Mafia than Microsoft's protection racket. Ballmer "You need protection or nasty things could happen to you and your customers, so take this big wad of money and we'll protect you"

It's different because there is an actual law against copyrigth-infringement, and most of the people threathened are actually guilty of breaking that law. Now, this doesn't make it rigth. It just means current copyrigth-law is bad law.

Copyrigth-law, as currently written, makes everyone a criminal. But only the ones that RIAA (or other large copyrigth-holders) choose to go after, get punished. Which means essentially, that *THEY* are the ones who decide, by criteria dictated by them, who gets punished and who not.

That's not how it's supposed to work; elected politicians are supposed to decide what is legal and what not. But by deciding that "everything" is illegal, they've efficiently handed the keys over to RIAA et al

"Everyone" is very sligthly pushing it, but it's not far from the truth. I was at a lecture about IT and law, and the professor asked those people who have ever willingly broken copyrigth-law to raise a hand. Literally 95% of all hands went up. IT-students have more reason and more expertise, so may be sligthly over-represented, but I'm willing to bet that 95% of current 25-year-olds are guilty of breaking copyrigth-law atleast once in the last year.

We should remove or change laws which we do not intend to uphold. Otherwise we hand over the power of defining de-facto law to those deciding what and whom to investigate. (because if everyone is guilty, by deciding to investigate someone you are de-facto deciding to punish that person)

but I'm willing to bet that 95% of current 25-year-olds are guilty of breaking copyrigth-law atleast once in the last year.

I would bet that it is more like 99% if not higher, at least if they had ever attended an outdoor birthday party or grade school. The song "Happy birthday" is purported to still be under copyright and public performances without paying royalties to the ASCAP are a violation of the claimed copyright (ASCAP Title code 380008955). Kinda nice to know that every time a kid sings "Happy birthday" in class, they are committing a crime. Although to be fair, the "smell like a monkey" fair use defense has not been t

We need to send someone to Congress and have them speak when it's someone's birthday. Then we have that guy do a little sing-a-long with all of the congressmen. Get them all to sing their colleague happy birthday.

Sadly, I know that you have been reading (and have posted in) the last few dozen stories and are just being an asshole, but I'll try to recap some of the main points here. Ray can (and has) done it many times and better than I can. He's also a lawyer, whereas IANAL. Be that as it may...

> How in the hell is legally protecting your rights by suing infringers who are distributing your copyrighted materials, and offering them a settlement to avoid court cases, an example of "Mafia tactics" or "protection money?"

They abuse court processes by:

* Doing things ex parte whenever possible, making sure that the other side never has a chance to be heard in court.

* Improper joinder of unrelated cases, for which they have been sanctioned in Texas. In spite of having been enjoined by the court, they have routinely ignored that ruling and simply avoided litigating in Texas.

* Unfair settlements. Although they have acknowledged in the press that they "occasionally" find innocent defendants, they pursue even their weakest cases in court until it's obvious they're going to lose. Then they try to get a dismissal without prejudice to avoid having to pay your legal fees. This means that you can either: a) Pay a ~$3,500 settlement or b) Pay a lawyer even more than that to represent you in court. If you're innocent, you end up paying no matter what. Yes, after a long and hard court battle, Debbie Foster *finally* won reasonable attorney's fees, but she's pretty much the only one so far. Usually, they cut & run and you're just out of luck and out of money.

In short, they do precious little to make sure that the people they sue are guilty, they torment anyone they sue in court (even going after your family if you prove to be innocent), and they twist every court rule they can get away with (hint: getting sanctioned & ignoring court orders is NOT something a reputable lawyer does).

So no, I'm not going to condone this "Won't someone please think of the poor RIAA!" crap when the RIAA come preaching this hypocritical holier than thou bit with respect to copyright law, only to turn around and ignore any laws or court orders that stand in their way.

> Wow really? For the first time, I feel slightly proud to be in Texas.

It's a big state. Not everyone in it can be a jerk:-)

Anyhow, ironically, the court was mad at them because they were defrauding the state of the proper filing fees by trying to get a "30 cases for the price of 1" type deal. I don't know the actual number of unrelated cases slapped together, but that at least gives you the idea.

I wonder if any lawyers challenging the John Doe cases have used that argument? Of course, the whole poin

Besides, I AM an artist. If I were signed with a label/distribution company/other organ, I would make >10 per unit sold. I much prefer that people burn or download my album, then buy me a beer. I get more out of it that way.

Okay, I've lost the thread of my argument, so I'm just going to say what I originally intended to say.

Clearchannel.

Money talks. Independent labels can't afford to get music on the radio in America, because they don't have the resource to buy the airtime or lobby the execs. The internet is their only hope. The RIAA, as far as I can work out, is accidentally crushing independent artists while they're going after the roaches. So, sure. Blame the RIAA-haters for depriving artists who already have record labels, have a valid form of income. I'll keep blaming the RIAA for keeping the little guy down with its' clumsy antics.

Money talks. Independent labels can't afford to get music on the radio in America, because they don't have the resource to buy the airtime or lobby the execs. The internet is their only hope. The RIAA, as far as I can work out, is accidentally crushing independent artists while they're going after the roaches. So, sure. Blame the RIAA-haters for depriving artists who already have record labels, have a valid form of income. I'll keep blaming the RIAA for keeping the little guy down with its' clumsy antics.

I doubt that it is accidental, at least not completely. But otherwise your point stands.

No, please do cheer. You can't get a victory unless someone fights back, and it has to be someone getting victimized by the RIAA to have real currency. We've gone years now without someone stepping up to the plate, so I would consider this to be a huge step. We've needed this for a long time.

This time, the RIAA can't drop the suit without prejudice as soon as it starts to look like they'll lose.

Who says they have to drop the suit? They can settle outside the courts and the defendant who has filed the counter-claim will be offered a large enough sum of money that they can't resist, who will then drop the counter-claim.

dont cheer yet, filing counterclaims is not the same as winning the case agaisnt the RIAA

Still, it'll be fun to watch them crap their pants and try to settle with the person for megabucks. If they flinch, their extortion plans are all over, as getting hit with a lawsuit from them will be like winning the lottery.

Obviously he emigrated due to disagreements he had with the current government of Kashyyyk allowing companies such as the RIAAArrrarraaa or the MPAAAaaarrrrarar to run rampant within the vast loopholes of the law while they sit in their painted-in corner attempting to tie their hands behind their own back.

Whereas the Ewoks were developing their own music infrastructure within a program called iWok (which has an internal distribution service for various music genres such as Wok & Woll).

Wasn't one of the key points of the American legal system originally being able to read and know the law? As in, so you know what you can and can't do? They really do need to reform some of these laws in terms of readability.

There are way too many ties between the people who write the law and the people who make money knowing the law. Politicans aren't about to put lawyers out of work by making the legal system intelligible to the common citizen. Besides, without ridiculous wording how would they hide the boondoggles?

There are way too many ties between the people who write the law and the people who make money knowing the law. Politicans aren't about to put lawyers out of work by making the legal system intelligible to the common citizen.

Having non-lawyers write laws will result in really poorly-written laws with plenty of loopholes. The law is like every other specialized field; it develops its own language for a reason.

So this contorted arcane language is more prescise than simple sentences in common English? This would only be the case if you had judges who ignored the intention of the law and adhered strictly to some strange word game played with the code of law. So... yeah, I guess we do need lawyers to write the law here.

Go into any law practice and ask for a show of hands about how many of them hate their state assemblies. You'd be surprised.

Lawmakers get all red-pen happy when issues pop up because whiny constituents demand that SOMEONE do SOMETHING to keep little Timmy from hearing "shit" on TV, or possibly, after specifically looking up how to accomplish it, have an encounter with a prostitute in a video game. It's not fair to blame legislatures, though, because they are acting in direct response to the public. They want them to write laws. People want callous, superficial, entertaining campaigns. People don't want to deal with real issues, and certainly don't want to take responsibility for themselves. A democracy reflects the people in it; the United States is getting exactly what it wants. But that's a subject for another thread.

Lawyers hate the absurdity of many laws as written, and hell, even many lawmakers get annoyed at the process. Writing rules by committee is like doing anything else by committee: if there was a creative vision, a coherent drive, or a sense of logic in the beginning, it's gone by the end. This is an inevitable consequence of letting too many people express too many opinions. Dictatorships have the cleanest, clearest laws. They have other downsides.

Though, in a way mafiaa lawsuits and rocket science are related. Both create a whole lot of hot air in an attempt to get a lot inert mass off the ground and both cost a lot of money where you wonder just what is so expensive about them.

Most of the victims just roll over because they can't afford to pay a lawyer. The RIAA doesn't go after people who can defend themselves. On the other hand, if this case and a couple of others are won in court then the RIAA won't be able to use its cheap tactics any more.

Their supposed expert (actually he is an expert, just not on what he is testifying to) and their investigators only sound good until they are properly challenged. In other words they're only good enough to fool most of the victims and maybe a credulous judge.

Most of the victims just roll over because they can't afford to pay a lawyer

On the other hand, the odds are that they have pinpointed a fair few people who have downloaded music. I really dislike their tactics (suing customers? Great idea!) and we do like to bring up the 'suing grandmothers/10 year olds/dead people' thing here on/. but it's fair to presume that with the amount of file trading going on, quite a few people that they sue are actually guilty.

Does the punishment fit the crime? I wouldn't say so, and their machine gun-like attitude to lawsuits is nauseating. But s

The answer? Portable HDDs and sharing them around your with your friends:)

In truth, I think you're right about that. Peer-to-peer served to get massive collections of music into the hands of, well, the masses. Now there are millions upon millions of 50+ Gb private stashes out there. The biggest threat the music industry is facing is the large, portable hard drive... whether it's in an iPod or not. I mean, in the time it takes to grab a few tunes from Limewire you can jack in a portable USB drive and commit copyright infringement on a Biblical scale.

As one of my friends, who has spent the last ten years fed-ex'ing the largest hard drives he can afford back and forth on a weekly basis with other so-inclined people, often says, "never underestimate the bandwidth of a fed-ex truck full of 500 Gb hard drives."

The RIAA waves a piece of paper and says "Look, at 11:28 on March 23rd 2007 Zaphod was making 'Stairway to Heaven' available for downloading on the Bittorrent network".

Zaphod: "Err, no, I wasn't."

RIAA: "Yes you did, we have a piece of paper!"

Zaphod: "Give me ten seconds and I can show you a piece of paper saying anything you like."

RIAA: "We have database logs and screenshots!"

Zaphod: "Give me five minutes with a computer and I'll show you database logs and screenshots of anything you like."

RIAA: "We have bizarrely detailed logs from your ISP showing that we downloaded a file from your computer at 11:29 on March 23rd 2007!."

Zaphod: "Yes, it was a picture of me buggering your mother."

RIAA: "..."

Really, I don't understand why the *AA's 'evidence' in these matters is relevant, let alone compelling. Do they have some sort of infallible tool for proving exactly what files Zaphod had on his computer?

Well, it hangs on what the judge deems "reasonable proof". If the mafiaa alone produces a log, it's clearly easily forged. If the defendant does, it's the same. When the ISP, a non-aligned party, produces evidence, it usually holds some meaning.

Really, I don't understand why the *AA's 'evidence' in these matters is relevant, let alone compelling.

Most of these cases end up before judges who have no idea how to turn a computer on, much less understand dynamic IP addresses, file-sharing, spyware, adware, wifi hacking, or any of the myriad factors that could provide doubt in a case like this.

This is sadly true, but is changing over time. Lawyers were some of the first professionals to deploy computer systems in the 1980's. (I remember, I was there) They were mostly using IBM XT/AT with Wordperfect, to type up legal briefs and such. Those lawyers that were fairly young then (20 years ago) are now approaching the age where the more respected among them get elected to judicial positions (late 40's to 50 or so). A lawyer I know personally was involved in the development/deployment of the first

IANAL. In civil cases all the plaintiff has to do is convince the judge that their claims are "probably" true. In a criminal case you have to prove a lot more. As far as I am aware screen shots, log files, etc. aren't considered any real evidence in a criminal case since they are so easily forged, but they are allowed in a civil case.

Let's say my kids are out playing in my yard and they throw a ball and it breaks a window of your car. If you sued me you wouldn't have to prove they did it, just that it's likely that they did.

An IT technician, with a grudge, working at the *AA? Or maybe someone realised that they made a mistake in the investigative process and don't want to admit it? Or perhaps an overly enthusiastic 'bounty hunter' was involved, if such people in TFA really do exist. In any event, as far as I'm aware the typical ISP log will show, at best, that they were able to transfer packets of data between my computer and theirs. I doubt that any ISP will be logging the packets themselves.It appears to come down to "You c

I think these charges, should they have merit might just stop the RIAA in its tracks. At the very least, experts would be far less willing to work on their behalf for fear of a damaged reputation and/or potential jail time. I know that in PA, acting as Private Detective without any kind of bond and licensure is a FELONY. I can't imagine doing so in Florida wouldn't be a crime either. We shall see about the outcome. My guess is that these charges will be whittled down and not much will become of this. I would really like to see this fought to the bitter end.

huh, what a crappy law. I don't even know how it stands up in court.Sure, I wuoldn't hire one that wasn't liscensed or bonded, but that doesn't mean they should have to be bonded.Based on the date of the law, I would wager this was created for some union influence.

Someone a couple of RIAA articles back was asking when they'd get bitten back, its good to see the comunity banding together in OSS fashion for a very quick time to market with such a response!;)Seriously though, it would be good to see the RIAA taken to the wall with this. To see them loose 10 or 20 times the amount they've gained from every ligitation they've performed would seem like justice to me, and perhaps it would make them think about whether all the litigation and drm technology is worth it..

I am all for seeing a criminal trial against the RIAA, but as others have stated its a bit of a "pipe dream" to actually get it.

my main concern is the RIAA/MPAA getting new laws passed that would be similar to a criminal version of the DMCA. Here in the US it seems you can buy -almost- any law you want, even if it will get overturned by a court later and tore down by organizations like the EFF. It will still be in effect long enough to do quite a bit of damage.

I could use this whole document and add one more charge. Violation of the DMCA!!! On my home network, every machine is protected by a unique password. The other two machines on the network have been taught the passwords of each machine, but anyone coming in from the outside would be reverse engineering my copy protection, and violating DMCA.

And while I have a P2P program, it was used to download 4 indie films. Each was burned off to DVD and they are not on my machine anymore!

As a Canadian I am always amazed at the abuse of Justice by litigants in the US. It would seem that if you have deep pockets you can defeat justice in the US (OJ). I have long thought that the US Justice system is hugely flawed and the RIAA and their various suits have reinforced my belief.

This article is a breath of fresh air. It is about time that the small guy takes it to the man.

The RIAA is a justice bully that is using the flawed system to protect their supposed turf, and has picked on the wrong person yet again.

The US Supreme court needs to step in and finally smack those bastards to their knees. The RIAA is not protecting the artists or the consumers -- they are a bloated association with ulterior motives that protect nothing other than their own interests and need to be given a severe reality check.

As a Canadian with different rights -- I will watch in amusement -- the US electorate needs to make this an issue, for fear of having the rest of the US Justice system undermined. The RIAA is way too big for its own britches. I hope they get cut down to the level they should be at (which is merely an association that represents the artists that make the money for the industry). Even the artists that they supposedly represent complain about them.

So what is wrong with this picture? Come on you Americans -- lobby your congress person on behalf of the artists -- the RIAA is a bully. We don't allow bullying in our schools or our workplaces. Why allow it in your marketplace?

It appears few stones have been left unturned in the counter complaint. It clearly alleges that the RIAA have been using scare tactics to maintain their control on music distribution. The interesting thing is that they have to now prove they didn't. Given that they the big RIAA members have been convicted of collusion in the past, I can't help but see this one becoming a really big nasty mess for them.

Given the U.S. Justice system runs slower than treacle, don't expect the RIAA to be pulled through the coals for a while.

I think they might know the meaning better than you -- looks like "irony of fate" to me. You are aware that "Irony" has multiple meanings, aren't you? (Yes, including "Like iron", before anybody makes that joke. Yes, really.)

That's because AFAIK he/she is a lawyer and has been involved in one of these RIAA cases (to what extent I'm unsure). Just look at the prior article submissions! Here [slashdot.org] and here [slashdot.org] being obvious examples.

Just so you know, the submitter's name is Ray Beckerman. He is a New York lawyer who has represented his share of RIAA victims and he has posted many articles updating us on the progress of these cases, including the one where he asked us to respond to the RIAA's "expert" witness who had basically admitted in a deposition to having essentially no scientific basis for his findings.

Because his clients are generally not wealthy and cannot afford thousands of dollars on experts and legal fees, he's turned to those of us in the technical community who are sick of the RIAA's bullying legal tactics, and I believe he found an Ask Slashdot helpful for once, in spite of the trolls (surely that must be a first...).

If you want to know about the cases he's involved in, he posts about those (and others) over on his blog [blogspot.com]. Or just talk to him when he shows up on Slashdot [slashdot.org]. He's a nice guy, he reads (and responds to) pretty much all replies to his posts, save maybe the trolls. And if he seems a bit curt at times, it's because the RIAA is also watching him. That's right, they've taken note of his blog and possibly other things and tried to twist the things he says and does to use against him in court. I can't see how it's even relevant (it probably isn't), but the RIAA lawyers aren't known for playing nice (or even by the rules, if you look at all the stuff they try and pull ex parte; one Texas judge got mad at them for trying to "defraud" the state of filing fees).

In other words, he's a good lawyer, and one of our few allies in the fight against the RIAA. Very, very few people can afford to represent themselves in court, even if they're innocent, and the RIAA is taking every advantage of that fact:(

I, for one, intend to do pretty much anything in my power to help him out.

So because the odds of me getting struck by a stray bullet while you fire at targets in your back yard, is so low im more likely to get killed in a freak zebra crossing, it should be legal to fire at targets in your back yard in a poplulated area?

Just because its rare, doesn't make it right. Murder, as it turns out, is pretty damn rare. Does that make murder right? If its right, it would become more common and suddenly, its wrong! Where does such logic lead?

You compared an event the probabilistically won't happen to an event that has happened.

Stop it, they don't apply to each other.

"...it should be legal to fire at targets in your back yard in a populated area?"if the odds are that low to hit ANYBODY, then there would be nothing wrong with firing a gun in your backyard. Of course you would be paying for any property damage.

Done safely and without impairing reasonable enjoyment of the ajoining properties I think shooting in your yard is fine.

Did you take reasonable care in your back yard firing range?Did you point at the ground?Did you build a bullet resistant structure to shoot within?eg wall, berm or hole?Did you use ammunition that will not travel off your property?Did you take steps to reduce the sound and impact on neighbors?

Just for fun I decided to test this theory when someone like you said this to me four years ago. I videotaped some fratboys playing drunk soccer, and then copied and pasted the clip repeatedly until I had an hour and a half long video. I then called the video "Shaolin Soccer.avi", put it in a Gnutella share directory on my computer that I connected to the university network (there were no other files in the share directory) and within three days the university had forwarded me a letter from the MPAA stating that I was sharing the movie "Shaolin Soccer." I had a good laugh with the residential networking guys about it. Together we told the MPAA to go fuck off.
I haven't been struck by lightning yet.

While underestimating your opponent is always bad, so can overestimating them. Why would a company have thought out legal action any better than they think out IT infrastructure, employee health care, etc.? How many times have you seen a company completely blow a truly big decision before? Why assume the legal department is any better?
Don't forget that the RIAA isn't just using employee lawyers, they've hired litigation firms. And, just like any good contractor, those firms certainly have glossed over any pitfalls of their strategy in order to convince the RIAA to pay them lots of money to do what they do. And do you think the RIAA lawyer who rubber-stamped this process had the time and the background to realize that there might be something wrong with the way they were proceeding? How many data center managers and CIO's have you seen rubber-stamp a great IT idea that turned out to cost the company 10-times the original estimate, and result in lost productivity and higher maintenance costs? Why assume lawyers are any different?

Certainly the RIAA lawyers have not done a good job for their clients. Their strategy decisions seem calculated to increase the total amount of legal fees expended, and nothing else.

E.g., in Capitol v. Foster [blogspot.com], at a time when the defendant's attorneys fees totalled $55,000, and the judge was preparing to calculate how much of that was "reasonable", the RIAA served a raft of motions and other dilatory requests. The result of this boatload of litigation activity:

-in 2 1/2 months the RIAA's exposure leaped from $55k to $114k

-the judge issued a new decision attacking the RIAA lawyers' motives, veracity, and intellectual integrity, and

-the judge ordered the RIAA to turn over its own attorneys billing records, which will no doubt be described in detail in the judge's order.

I'm estimating the RIAA paid $100,000 for those "additional services".